Jurisdiction

of
Supreme
Court
The
Supreme
Court
is
the
highest
appellate
Court
of
the
land.
It
has
the
following
kind
of
jurisdiction:
1. Original
jurisdiction
(Arts.
71
&
131)
2. Appellate
jurisdiction
(Arts.
132-134)
Constitutional
jurisdiction
Civil
jurisdiction
Criminal
jurisdiction
3. Special
Leave
to
Appeal
(Art.136)
4. Review
Jurisdiction
(Art.137)
5. Advisory
jurisdiction
(Art.143)
6. Writ
jurisdiction
(Art.
32)
7. Curative
Petition
(Judicial
innovation)
Original
jurisdiction:
Article
71
vests
all
types
of
disputes
arising
out
of
or
in
connection
with
the
election
of
a
President
or
Vice-President
on
the
Supreme
Court
whose
decision
shall
be
final.
Under
Article
131
of
the
Constitution,
the
Supreme
Court
shall
have
original
jurisdiction
in
the
following
cases
of
disputes:
Between
the
Government
of
India
and
one
or
more
States
or
Between
the
Government
of
India
and
any
State
or
States
on
one
side
and
one
or
more
other
States
on
the
other
or
Between
two
or
more
States.

Appellate
jurisdiction:
Under
Article
132,
an
appeal
shall
lie
to
Supreme
Court
from
any
judgement,
decree
or
final
order
of
any
High
Court
if
it
involves
a
substantial
question
of
law
as
to
the
interpretation
of
this
Constitution.
For
making
such
appeal
no
certification
of
the
High
Court
under
Article
134A
is
required.
(Constitutional
jurisdiction)
In
civil
matters
as
provided
in
Article
133,
an
appeal
shall
lie
to
the
Supreme
Court
if
the
High
Court
certifies
under
Article
134
A
that
the
case
involves
a
substantial
question
of
law
of
general
importance
and
that
in
the
opinion
of
the
High
Court
the
said
question
needs
to
be
decided
by
the
Supreme
Court.
(It
may
be
noted
that
in
the
event
of
failure
to
secure
required
certificate
from
the
High
Court,
the
aggrieved
party
can
still
try
for
Special
Leave
Petition
before
the
Supreme
Court
by
invoking
Article
136
on
the
same
matter).
Under
Article
134,
an
appeal
in
criminal
matters
shall
lie
to
the
Supreme
Court
if
the
High
Court
has
on
appeal
reversed
an
order
of
acquittal
of
an
accused
person
and
sentenced
him
to
death,
has
withdrawn
for
trial
before
itself
any
case
from
any
court
subordinate
to
it
and
convicted
the
accused
person
and
sentenced
him
to
death
or
certifies
that
the
case
is
a
fit
one
for
appeal
to
the

Supreme
Court.
(in
the
first
two
conditions,
no
certificate
for
appeal
is
required
from
the
High
Court).
Special
Leave
to
Appeal
(Article
136)
It
is
a
discretionary
power
vested
with
the
Supreme
Court
to
grant
special
leave
to
appeal
from
any
judgement,
decree,
determination,
sentence
or
order
passed
by
any
court
or
tribunal.
(Excluding
judgement,
decree
etc
passed
by
the
Armed
Forces
court
or
tribunal)
Review
jurisdiction
(137)
Under
the
Review
jurisdiction,
the
Supreme
Court
shall
have
power
to
review
any
judgement
pronounced
or
order
made
by
it.
Curative
Petition
A
person
who
is
aggrieved
by
a
final
judgment
or
order
of
the
apex
court,
after
a
petition
for
`review'
of
the
same
has
been
dismissed
is
entitled
to
relief
if
he
establishes:
1)
Violation
of
principles
of
natural
justice
even
though
he
was
not
a
party
to
the
legal
dispute
but
the
judgment
adversely
affected
his
interests
or,
if
he
was
a
party,
he
was
not
served
with
a
notice
of
the
proceedings
and
the
matter
proceeded
as
if
he
had
notice
and
2)
where
in
the
proceedings
a
learned
judge
failed
to
disclose
his
connection
with
the
subject-matter
or
the
parties
giving
scope
for
an
apprehension
of
`bias'
and
the
judgment
adversely
affects
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner,
in
the
`curative
petition',
shall
aver
specifically
that
the
grounds
mentioned
therein
had
been
taken
in
the
`review
petition'
(filed
by
him
after
the
final
judgment)
and
that
it
was
dismissed
by
`circulation'
and
that
the
curative
petition
shall
contain
a
certification
by
a
senior
advocate.
The
curative
petition
has
to
be
first
circulated
to
a
Bench
of
three
senior-most
judges
and
the
judges
who
passed
the
judgment
complained
of,
if
available.
It
is
only
when
a
majority
of
the
learned
judges
on
this
Bench
conclude
that
the
matter
needs
hearing
that
it
should
be
listed
before
the
same
Bench
(as
far
as
possible
)which
may
pass
appropriate
orders.
In
the
event
of
the
Bench
holding
at
any
stage
that
the
petition
is
without
any
merit
and
vexatious,
it
may
impose
exemplary
costs
on
the
petitioner.
(As
held
in
Rupa
Ashok
Hurra
v.
Ashok
Hurra
(2002).1
In
Zakarius
Lakra
v.
Union
of
India,
the
Supreme
Court
entertained
a
curative
petition
on
the
ground
that
the
school
certificate
showed
that
the
accused,
who
had
been
sentenced
to
death,
was
a
minor
when
the
offence
was
committed.

In
this
case
the
question
of
constitutional
law
of
considerable
significance
arises
for
consideration
had
been
whether
an
aggrieved
person
is
entitled
to
any
relief
against
a
final
judgment/order
of
this
Court,
after
dismissal
of
review
petition
under
Article
137,
either
under
Article
32
of
the
Constitution
or
otherwise.

The
court
has
clarified
in
the
above
given
cases
that
after
the
rejection
of
review
petition
by
the
Supreme
Court,
the
same
cannot
be
entertained
under
the
writ
jurisdiction
contained
in
Article
32.
The
appropriate
remedy
is
only
to
file
a
curative
petition
as
per
the
procedure
indicated
by
this
Court
in
Rupa
Ashok
Hurra
case. There
was
a
growing
tendency
to
challenge
under
Article
32
of
the
Constitution
of
India
final
judgments/orders
of
the
Supreme
Court
after
dismissal
of
review
petitions.
The
reason
for
such
an
unhealthy
and
unconstitutional
practice,
common
to
all
such
petitions,
was
lack
of
a
forum
where
the
petitioners
could
seek
appropriate
relief.
Recently,
the
Supreme
Court
has
reopened
the
Bhopal
gas
leak
disaster
case
after
a
curative
petition
filed
by
the
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation
(CBI),
seeking
harsher
punishments
for
the
accused.
The
CBI
petitioned
that
the
apex
court
should
invoke
its
inherent
power
in
public
interest
to
address
and
remedy
errors
apparent
on
the
face
of
record
in
the
judgement
and
order
of
September
13,
1996.
This
is
a
noble
way
to
bring
justice
to
the
aggrieved
as
well
as
last
opportunity
for
the
Supreme
Court
to
set
right
miscarriage
of
justice.
A
ray
of
hope
for
the
case
that
truly
and
genuinely
deserves
re-consideration.
This
judicial
mechanism
is
being
already
widely
in
use
now.
However,
the
judiciary
must
ensure
that
curative
petition
is
maintainable
only
for
rarest
of
the
rare
cases
and
it
does
not
become
a
tool
in
the
hands
of
rich
and
powerful
to
deny
justice
to
the
poor
by
exploiting
this
provision.